DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akira HIGUCHI, "Tire Model for Vehicle Dynamic Analysis", Transactions of Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan, Vol. 45, No. 1 (2014): p. 101-107 (hereinafter “Akira”).
Regarding claim 1, Akira discloses a tire behavior estimating device (abstract) that estimates a physical amount (Page 101, Sections 1-3.1 ) relating to behavior of a tire from tire design information (Pages 101-103, Sections 3.1-3.4) by using a tire model that outputs a physical amount relating to behavior of a tire in accordance with input parameters (See Fig 3), the device comprising:
a storing section storing relationships of correspondence between tire design information and parameters that are inputs to the tire model (See Figs 1-7, Pages 101-103, Sections 2-3.4);
an acquiring section acquiring tire design information (See Figs 1-7, Pages 101-103, Sections 2-3.4);
a converting section (See pages 101-104, Section 3.1-3.4) that, based on the relationships of correspondence stored in the storing section, converts tire design information acquired at the acquiring section into parameters to be input into the tire model; and
an inputting section inputting the parameters converted at the converting section into the tire model (See pages 101-104, Section 3.1-3.4).
Regarding claim 2, Akira discloses the tire model is a Magic Formula model. (See Pages 101-102. Sections 2-3.1)
Regarding claim 3, Akira discloses the physical amount (Pages 101 Sections 1-3.1 ) relating to behavior of the tire includes a generated force of the tire including lateral force of the tire, and the tire design information includes information expressing cornering stiffness (Pages 101-103, Sections 3.1-3.4 which disclose including lateral force of the tire and also cornering stiffness of the tire)
Regarding claim 9, Akira discloses the parameters include a parameter relating to a physical amount included in the tire design information, and a parameter relating to load dependence of the physical amount included in the tire design information. (See pages 102-104, Sections 3.2-3.4)
Regarding claim 10, Akira discloses the physical amount relating to behavior of the tire includes a generated force of the tire including lateral force of the tire, and the tire design information includes at least one of information expressing self- aligning torque stiffness, information expressing camber stiffness, information expressing camber torque stiffness, or information expressing braking stiffness. (See pages 102-104, Sections 3.2-3.4)
Regarding claim 15, Akira discloses a tire behavior estimating method (abstract) that estimates a physical amount (Page 101, Sections 1-3.1) relating to behavior of a tire from tire design information (Pages 101-103. Sections 3.1-3.4) by using a tire model that outputs a physical amount relating to behavior of a tire in accordance with input parameters (See Fig 3), the method comprising:
acquiring tire design information (Se Figs 1-7, Pages 101-103, Sections 2-3.4);
converting acquired tire design information into parameters to be input into the tire model (See Pages 101-104, Sections 3.1-3.4), based on relationships of correspondence stored in a storing section that stores relationships of correspondence between tire design information and parameters that are inputs to the tire model; and
inputting the converted parameters into the tire model (See Pages 101-104, Sections 3.1-3.4).
Regarding claim 16, Akira discloses a non-transitory storage medium (abstract) storing a program that is executable by a computer to function as an estimation section that: estimates physical quantities (Page 101, Sections 1-3.1) related to tire behavior from tire design information (Pages 101-103, Section 1-3.1) using a tire model that outputs physical quantities related to tire behavior according to input parameters (See Figs 2) , and executes processing including:
acquiring tire design information (See Figs 1-7, Pages 101-103. Sections 3.1-3.4);
converting acquired tire design information into parameters to be input into the tire model, based on relationships of correspondence stored in a storing section that stores relationships of correspondence between tire design information and parameters that are inputs to the tire model; and
inputting the converted parameters into the tire model (See pages 101-104, Sections 3.1-3.4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira HIGUCHI, "Tire Model for Vehicle Dynamic Analysis", Transactions of Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan, Vol. 45, No. 1 (2014): p. 101-107 (hereinafter “Akira”) in view of Naoshi MIYASHITA, "A Study of Transient Cornering Property by Use of an Analytical Tire Model", non-official translation (Proceedings of the Autonomous Vehicle Technology Association.), Internet : DOI: https://doi.org/10.11351/jsaeronbun.44.1391, November 2013, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1391-1396 (hereinafter “Naoshi”).
Regarding claim 6, Akira discloses the device according to claim 1.
However, Akira fails to disclose the tire design information is tire design information that includes information expressing transient characteristics of a tire, and based on the relationships of correspondence stored in the storing section, the converting section converts tire design information, which is acquired by the acquiring section and includes information expressing transient characteristics of the tire, into parameters to be input into the tire model. Naoshi discloses the tire design information is tire design information that includes information expressing transient characteristics of a tire, and based on the relationships of correspondence stored in the storing section, the converting section converts tire design information, which is acquired by the acquiring section and includes information expressing transient characteristics of the tire, into parameters to be input into the tire model (see pages 1393-1394, Section 3, Figs 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Naoshi into Akira for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for improving vehicle performance by increasing understanding of tire wheel slip during operational use.
Regarding claim 7, Akira discloses the device according to claim 6.
However, Akira fails to disclose the physical amount relating to behavior of the tire includes a generated force of the tire including lateral force of the tire, and the tire design information, which includes the information expressing transient characteristics of the tire, includes information expressing relaxation length of the tire. Naoshi discloses the physical amount relating to behavior of the tire includes a generated force of the tire including lateral force of the tire, and the tire design information, which includes the information expressing transient characteristics of the tire, includes information expressing relaxation length of the tire (See pages 1393-1394, Section 3, Figs 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Naoshi into Akira for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for improving vehicle performance by increasing understanding of tire wheel slip during operational use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior arts made available do not teach or fairly suggest, the numeric formulas calculation limitations recited in the respective claims.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights